3). Espionage has a long running tactical objective of election interference that everyone does, and everyone knows everyone does. It’s normally not called out under the basis that it is: 1). Act of War requiring a Declaration of War follow through. 2). Diminishes election integrity. 3). Pressures Democratic Processes legitimacy.

Not much real point in escalating an issue unless you want to cause tensions to escalate both domestically and internationally.

Clearly, Putin left that Trump-Putin meeting and went to the Russian defense ministries afterwards.

The long and short of the entire affair centers on the US GDP is a bubble dependent on the US Dollar’s world’s reserve currency status whose remaining pillars are Britain, Eurozone, and OPEC members of the Arabian Alliance.

Why are we not angry at the people responsible for leaving us open to attack?

1). Arrogance, it falls under the ‘How dare they’, and this runs counter to Democrat and Republican respectively ‘the US is the [execeptionalism/Indispensible] nation’, which largely is based on the GDP bubble dependent on the US Dollar’s world’s reserve currency status.

2). It is an act of war that requires a follow through of a Declaration of War if called as the Trump-Putin illustrates occurred, which is also a diplomatic no-no.

3). It deflects from structural imbalances such as attacking the source/author as WikiLeaks rather than the content therein.

Why are we not investigating the entire election, including the Democratic Party?

Hence, the Trump-Russia collusion-interference investigations, and the Election Integrity Commission. As Diplomatic History shows, Espionage focus strategic objectives are infiltration and subversion.

Why are we not hardening the grid?

Political Expediency. To put bluntly, if you take foreign analysts’ assessment of the fall of the USSR and War College war-game scenarios, it’s about Party ahead of country for both Democrats and Republicans.

Why are the democrats and the MSM trying so hard to focus the public and the politicians on Russian collusion with the Trump campaign?

1). It attacks the source/author of groups as WikiLeaks rather than actually contending with the content.

2). It rallies the Democratic Party’s base support factions under the ‘Resist Trump’ movement made up of Anti-Trump factions. Never mind, the entire affair promotes the same economic model as the Confederate States of America, expansionist foreign policy, and guilty until proven innocent justice system that includes guilty by association.

What are we missing while they are flashing their worthless shiny object?

1). The US GDP is a bubble dependent on the US Dollar’s world’s reserve currency status. We’re only talking the difference between over 80% of GDP and over 93% of GDP.

2). The US Dollar’s world’s reserve currency status’s remaining pillars are: Britain, Eurozone, OPEC members of the Arabian Alliance as Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and UAE (key players in the Qatar affair), and the Pacific Pivot Australia, Singapore, Taiwan, and South Korea, which are also key economic centers of globalization connecting California, New York, London, Brussels, Frankfurt, and etc to the Pacific via Singapore, Taiwan, and South Korea.

3). BRICS led by Russo-Sino beginning in 2009 formed economic-military pacts that connected the two countries and dropped the US Dollar in denominated trade and laid the foundation of China’s AIIB banking system.

4). The War College citing the US Military unconventional warfare focus is a lose-lose proposition against Russia, against China, and against a Russo-Sino pact. Any war with Russia or China must possess an alliance with the other, and they’ve made it plain a wedge between them given US interests as Ukraine, Syria, Iran, Pakistan, and North Korea who makeup the remaining buffer zones between Russo-Sino and US interests are polarized. The second major issue here is that abroad analysts evaluated the USSR fell because Cold Wars are won by the nation possessing the World’s Reserve Currency Status via advantage of time Leninist-Marxist dialectics proponents of the USSR thought they had, and the Soviets failed to directly challenge the US citing specifically the Soviet’s backing off in the Cuban Missile Crisis.

To put it bluntly, if Diplomatic History is accurate during times of peace espionage shifts to strategic advantages as maximizing advantages and minimizing disadvantages, it boils down to who is seen as the aggressor for the most part or capable of fighting a war in multiple regions, which the US’s ability to fight in multiple regions have taken a major beating over the years.

My case and point is if they really wanted to remove Trump; Responsibility to Protect mandates aid provided be provided to the Established Government unless an alternative established government is created for example North-South Korea and Vietnam. The US has been violating RTP for decades particularly via the War on Terror. Violating RTP constitutes a war-crime and violating RTP under false pretenses is a premeditated war-crime. Kinda hard to remove Trump for RTP violations when the US has been violating it for decades. Pretty simple really, Democrats aren’t going to slam Obama, H Clinton, Kerry, B Clinton, and etc in the same manner Republicans aren’t going to slam HW Bush and W. Bush in particular. In fact, Obama granted W. Bush’s administration a Presidential Pardon for crimes committed in the pursuit of the war on terror.

Post navigation

3 thoughts on “Response to “Russia Russia Russia””

I have to add that in the United States we have a literary device which is used frequently when the author is making a deliberative point. It is called a rhetorical question. It means that everyone knows the answer to the question and why the author is asking, however it illustrates one or more aspects of the point that the author is trying to make. By breaking the post down to answer each rhetorical question which was intended to merely direct the reader’s thoughts down a certain path, you missed the forrest by examining each tree. But, good info in your post. Just thought you would want to know.

A very interesting critical analysis of my blog from a political science and an economic perspective. I agree, but that was not the point. I write differently, each blog has only one message. However, I enjoyed reading your commentary.